Talk:65 Cybele

Source

Which source gives that 320 km diameter? Only sources I can find (IRAS, occultation) give a diameter of about 240 km. Jyril 16:57, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Liddell & Scott give adj. form Cybelian. kwami 01:20, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Broken Links

Most of the links to source data here are broken. Not sure what code to put it to report it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickpenn (talk • contribs) 10:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Dwarf planet?

At a mere 300x230km there is no reason to think Cybele is a dwarf planet. Even icy Kuiper belt objects will have a hard time being dwarf planets at 270km. Cybele is a disrupted failed protoplanet. Ugh, "Wikipedia Fail 2015"... -- Kheider (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly possible it's collapsed into a sphere. To point something out...Phoebe is under 200 km, but it was quite clearly once round. Meaning, the boundary is at the lower end. An object at about 220 km will still collapse into a sphere. Phoebe proves this, but it was then captured and battered out of HE. So 200 km is the lower limit, or thereabouts. --DN-boards1 (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

200km is a lower limit for ICY objects, not rockier objects bashed around by other rocks in the asteroid belt. Asteroids less than 500km in diameter will not be dps. -- Kheider (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

David Weintraub's comments on this object on page 202 of his 2007 book would probably qualify for wp:fringe and wp:weight because I do not know anyone else that ever made a dp-claim for Cybele. -- Kheider (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Occultations

@JorisvS: why are we mentioning routine occultations from 7+ years ago? Is there something special about them? Geogene (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Rather: Why should they not be mentioned? Was no information gained from them? Note that this does not mean the presentation cannot be improved. --JorisvS (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a slight preference for keeping the section, but it could use a more useful re-write. -- Kheider (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My position exactly, too. --JorisvS (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no interest in the recent occultations themselves (which is the way they're currently presented-simply that occultations happened somewhere). But if useful data was obtained from observing them, then I think they ought to be mentioned in that context (with the new information). I don't have any sources on whether the the recent occultations produced information worth mentioning or not. No objection at all to the older events that were significant to the history of understanding the asteroid, and are mentioned in that context. Geogene (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)